The title is sarcastic, so please no comments that just say, "no."
Secondly, if I offend anyone during this brief discussion, I apologize, was not intended and was probably only brought up to make a point.
Moving on, The last few weeks here at the escapist, I noticed something very odd. A sudden hate for what was a very beloved game, Fallout 3. Now, yes everyone is entitled to their opinion, thats not the issue at hand, the issue I've noticed is a lot of nah-sayers for New Vegas for what seems to be very silly reasons.
1st reason: The game looks just like Fallout 3 with only upgraded weapons and enemies. Well, you might be right judging from the available screen shots, but any other information about the games seems to disagree.( Another side point, this point was brought up by another loved game here on the escapist, Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2. I remember that quiet frequently people said this wasn't going to be the case, regardless of information.) Well, for one, the information gathered has indicated a nearly complete overhaul of the skill point system. Course it may not change that much, but from what I've read, they're making it much harder to max a skill out. They're purposely adding useless skill sets, and adding new skills that will affect the game in new ways. Adding a different companion mechanic. So, they won't be as annoying as Fallout 3. And Again, this is not in D.C., so its going to have a different story and new places to explore, and honestly, thats what Bethesda RPGs are usually about. (Yes, I know Obsidian is making this game.)
2nd Reason: Fallout 3 wasn't a true RPG, so theres no way in hell New Vegas can be. Well, you might be right on the money there, but because since Fallout 3 made so much money, why fix what ain't broken? Its not like the company is trying to sell it like is the purist RPG ever, they've said is and RPG with FPS elements, and thats what it is. A side point, why worry about how pure a game is if its fun? I mean, aren't games supposed to be fun?
3rd Reason: Fallout 3 wasn't true to the original Fallouts(Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout: Tactics), so how can New Vegas be true to it aswell? Well, personally, I feel that the main reason most people think Fallout 3 was true to the originals is because it was set in D.C., which should obviously feel different than California. Another reason is that is because it is in First Person, not overhead and that is real-time not turn-based. Well, I can understand enjoying turn-based gaming, but just because a game switch styles does not mean it becomes unfaithful. Just means its different from the old, which can sometimes be a good thing. As for why New Vegas can be faithful is simple, it is in Nevada, which means that it will have that West Coast feel. It'll have things that will have only been on the west coast, and reflect the old games more easily because they won't have to try to shoe-horn certain iconic factions into the game, because it would just make since for them to be there to begin with. (Also, BoS really shouldn't have been in Fallout 3, but thats a moot point.)
So, theres my there counter points to the most common criticisms. All I'm saying is this, if you don't like a game, thats fine, but if you're going to say a game is bad, at least make sense when you criticize it.
Secondly, if I offend anyone during this brief discussion, I apologize, was not intended and was probably only brought up to make a point.
Moving on, The last few weeks here at the escapist, I noticed something very odd. A sudden hate for what was a very beloved game, Fallout 3. Now, yes everyone is entitled to their opinion, thats not the issue at hand, the issue I've noticed is a lot of nah-sayers for New Vegas for what seems to be very silly reasons.
1st reason: The game looks just like Fallout 3 with only upgraded weapons and enemies. Well, you might be right judging from the available screen shots, but any other information about the games seems to disagree.( Another side point, this point was brought up by another loved game here on the escapist, Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2. I remember that quiet frequently people said this wasn't going to be the case, regardless of information.) Well, for one, the information gathered has indicated a nearly complete overhaul of the skill point system. Course it may not change that much, but from what I've read, they're making it much harder to max a skill out. They're purposely adding useless skill sets, and adding new skills that will affect the game in new ways. Adding a different companion mechanic. So, they won't be as annoying as Fallout 3. And Again, this is not in D.C., so its going to have a different story and new places to explore, and honestly, thats what Bethesda RPGs are usually about. (Yes, I know Obsidian is making this game.)
2nd Reason: Fallout 3 wasn't a true RPG, so theres no way in hell New Vegas can be. Well, you might be right on the money there, but because since Fallout 3 made so much money, why fix what ain't broken? Its not like the company is trying to sell it like is the purist RPG ever, they've said is and RPG with FPS elements, and thats what it is. A side point, why worry about how pure a game is if its fun? I mean, aren't games supposed to be fun?
3rd Reason: Fallout 3 wasn't true to the original Fallouts(Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout: Tactics), so how can New Vegas be true to it aswell? Well, personally, I feel that the main reason most people think Fallout 3 was true to the originals is because it was set in D.C., which should obviously feel different than California. Another reason is that is because it is in First Person, not overhead and that is real-time not turn-based. Well, I can understand enjoying turn-based gaming, but just because a game switch styles does not mean it becomes unfaithful. Just means its different from the old, which can sometimes be a good thing. As for why New Vegas can be faithful is simple, it is in Nevada, which means that it will have that West Coast feel. It'll have things that will have only been on the west coast, and reflect the old games more easily because they won't have to try to shoe-horn certain iconic factions into the game, because it would just make since for them to be there to begin with. (Also, BoS really shouldn't have been in Fallout 3, but thats a moot point.)
So, theres my there counter points to the most common criticisms. All I'm saying is this, if you don't like a game, thats fine, but if you're going to say a game is bad, at least make sense when you criticize it.
